ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is the classification of “Exposed Aluminium Plates” – whether under Chapter Heading 37.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 eligible to the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986, as contended by the assessees or under Central Excise Tariff subheading 8442.00 which is not covered by the notification above mentioned.
2. None appears for the assessees and hence we have heard learned S.D.R. and perused the records. We find that in the case of Kasturi & Sons v. Collector of Customs identical goods namely photo-sensitive plates for printing were held to fall for classification under heading 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Act and classification under Heading 37.01/08 was not accepted. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissal of the revenue’s appeal, as seen from 1997 (94) E.L.T. A56 (S.C.). In the case of Collector of Customs v. Kumudan Publications (P) Ltd. the Apex Court has upheld classification of photo-sensitive nylon printing plates under heading 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not under heading 37.01/08 thereof, holding that the goods are exclusively used in printing and cannot be called photographic plates within the meaning of Chapter 37 the Apex Court has held them to be covered by heading 84.34 which covers “machinery, apparatus and accessories for type founding or type-setting; machinery other than the machine tools of Heading printing blocks, plates or cylinders; printing type, impressed flongs and matrices, printing blocks, plates and cylinders; blocks, plates cylinders and lithographic stones, prepared for printing purposes (for example planed, grained or polished)”.
3. The reliance placed by the Revenue before the Supreme Court on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Kasturi and Sons 1985 (19) E.L.T. 183 wherein the Tribunal had held that the goods fall for classification under Chapter Heading 37.01 (the second Kasturi decision in has upheld classification under Heading 84.34) has been rejected by the Apex Court.
3. Following the ratio of the Apex Court decisions in the case of Collector of Customs v. Kumudan Publications (P) Ltd. and Collector v. Kasturi & Sons (cited supra) we hold that the goods in dispute in the present appeal fall for classification under Heading 84.42 (Corresponding to Heading 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Act). The reference is answered accordingly.
4. We are informed that no other dispute survives for decision by the Division Bench as the only issue was that of classification of goods. Since classification has been held to be under Heading 84.42 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has classified the goods under the above heading and reject the appeal of the assessee.
(Dictated in Court)